Why have the Sign Gifts Ended

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
Just some points for thought.....

You are aware that Paul called it his Gospel, are you not?

2Ti 2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my gospel:

He also included himself with others, as you mentioned.

Gal 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preaches unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.

I would say that Paul's message was oriented toward the Gentiles and certain ways of Jewish thinking had to be removed. His Gospel was the same, as Peters are any of the Apostles but Paul did have to correct the Jewish Apostles on several points:
1). The need for circumcision - was cast out by joint agreement but Paul was the one arguing for it's removal.
2). Peter was rebuked by Paul because he was guilty of Hypocrisy, giving into separation of the Jews from the Gentiles.
3). Sent one of the Gospel writers away, (believed to be John Mark) because he couldn't get along with him.

Additionally, I would say read John's Gospel and notice how many times he speaks of Election. So to in Paul's writings:

2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Just some things that crossed my mind when I read your post.
I have lost count of the numerous times others kept throwing Galatians 1:8-9 at me, whenever I explained Galatians 2:7-9. that there is a gospel of the circumcision and a gospel of the uncircumcision. ;)

John's gospel, as I have explained earlier in this thread here https://christianchat.com/threads/why-have-the-sign-gifts-ended.196068/post-4429813 , there are plenty of verses from him that linked born again to "obeying the commandments".

One thing for sure, you will not find salvation by faith alone in the finished work of Christ on the cross, apart from works in any of his writings.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,369
13,730
113
No it's actually very good exegesis. There is nothing in the text are in nearby text to lead one to believe it is the Lord or the coming Kingdom.
I will refer you to the first section of @presidente's post #333. He said it well, and I see no reason to adapt it.

Exegesis makes sense out of what is in the text, and doesn't require that other ideas be added in. There is nothing nearby in the text to suggest that Paul is talking about the OT or NT either!
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Yada yada yada.

I can quote damning verses at you too; they prove nothing other than you have a low opinion of me and a lower opinion of proper hermeneutics.
I know you will hear or see the truth of Gods word. You refuse to address scripture directly and hurl lofty sounding barbs at those who stand firm on biblical truth.

For the cause of Chrisst
Roger
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,369
13,730
113
3). Sent one of the Gospel writers away, (believed to be John Mark) because he couldn't get along with him.
One comment: Acts 15:37-39 explains why Paul did not want to take Mark along, but Paul's disagreement was with Barnabas, not Mark himself. It was not because they "couldn't get along".
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
You really wear a strong filter on those eyes when it comes to this passage. If this passage were talking about the Bible, you would be able to point to some proof to it from the context. Paul's thoughts, speech, and understanding did not change from being like that of a child's to that of an adults when the Bible was written. 'The Bible' does not fit the context. Nor do you have perfect knowledge because you have the Bible. Could you really say that you gained no knowledge of the word of God between the time you first read the Bible and now? If your knowledge were perfect, you would not need to learn.
You are resisting the Holy Spirit and not receiving the truth from the text. Perfect in the passage refers to complete not perfect in the modern English as in without flaw. You certainly know that and yet you persist in twisting Gods word to support a behavior which is not biblical.
I believe 'tongues' are languages as I have been consistent about that through the years I have been on this forum.
Lovely now convince the rest of the Pentecostals of that simple truth. It will begin the journey to biblical truth about modern speaking in tongues.
It is really sad that you would entrench yourself in such a position. It seems like you treat your interpretation as axiomatic, no matter how unreasonable it is. I Corinthians 12, after listing different gifts manifested in different members of the body, including 'divers tongues', speaks against saying to another member saying to another, "I have no need of thee."
I stand firmly against any who do despot to the word of God. Corrupt gospels and a church in rebellion against the Lord. The church has forsaken her mission and gone after false gods.

Show from the scriptures that what goes on in the Pentecostal church aligns with 1 Cor 12-14 and the book of Acts.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,369
13,730
113
Show from the scriptures that what goes on in the Pentecostal church aligns with 1 Cor 12-14 and the book of Acts.
He is not obligated to defend the Pentecostal church's claims or practices; only his own... which he has done so.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
'Read John's gospel. It has a strong emphasis on salvation by faith.
Would that be John 5:29?

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
Thomas called Jesus 'My Lord's, but that does not mean there has to be more than one Jesus aso we can all say 'My Lord's. He can be mine and yours too. Paul's proclamation of good news can be ours too.

Acts 15 recorded an agreement about __Gentile___ circumcision. Paul himself circumcised the don of a Jewish mother. He went along with James' and the elders' request to provide f or the expenses of certain men in the temple to signify that he was not opposed to Jews circumcision their baby boys among other things.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
Thomas called Jesus 'My Lord's, but that does not mean there has to be more than one Jesus aso we can all say 'My Lord's. He can be mine and yours too. Paul's proclamation of good news can be ours too.

Acts 15 recorded an agreement about __Gentile___ circumcision. Paul himself circumcised the don of a Jewish mother. He went along with James' and the elders' request to provide f or the expenses of certain men in the temple to signify that he was not opposed to Jews circumcision their baby boys among other things.
that Agreement to excuse the gentiles was only reached after “many no small disputations”
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
You're the one throwing barbs.
And your opinion is far above the heights of heaven.
He is not obligated to defend the Pentecostal church's claims or practices; only his own... which he has done so.
He has only recited the Pentecostal doctrines he has been taught. He cannot defend the indefensible. One who argues against God is not wise.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
the Other gospel that was taught then was found in acts 15:1.

The objective of acts 15 is to determine whether that was still valid among the gentiles,
The same Gospel was preached to circumcised and un circumcised.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
If it was the same, there would have been no need for the Jerusalem Council in the first place.
No, that is not true. Read Romans 4. The circumcised are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and so are the uncircumcised. Peter made the same point in Acts 15. The Gospel is not about whether to be circumcised or not. The discussion in Acts 15 is not about Jewish believers being circumcised.

Gentiles who sought to be circumcised because they did not trust in Christ were salvation were abandoning the Gospel.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
You are resisting the Holy Spirit and not receiving the truth from the text.
You should be very careful how you throw around the name 'Holy Spirit.' You are the one who has accepted a system of arguments that leads you reject the operation of certain gifts of the Spirit. The text does not say what you assert.

Perfect in the passage refers to complete not perfect in the modern English as in without flaw. You certainly know that and yet you persist in twisting Gods word to support a behavior which is not biblical.
The fact that 'telios' can be translated 'complete' does not prove your point. The word does not mean 'completed Bible.' That is the idea you are eisegeting into the text. Many serious theologians, even cessationists, recognize the serious problems with your point of view. One of the most well-known outspoken opponents of the operation of certain spiritual gifts in the church today is John MacArthur. He even argues that telios refers to the eternal state. Perfection, the complete thing, is coming. When it comes, Paul's speech, knowledge, and understanding when he wrote these scriptures will be like a child's in comparison to his speech, knowledge, and understanding. We still 'know in part.' If you knew fully then you would see the obvious error of what you are arguing, and how it is obviously inconsistent with the text of scripture. We still see through a glass darkly, now, and faith, hope, and charity still abide now.

If I remember correctly, you are a dispensationalist, so don't you believe that the two witnesses will prophesy in the end times? And don't you believe that these spiritual gifts that you interpret I Corinthians 13 to say had already been 'done away' will revive at some point during a future 7 year period so the two witnesses can prophesy? If so, that's really inconsistent. If they are done away when the perfect, comes, why try to argue they will come back, and if they will come back, why would that have to be during 7 years and not during a transitional period before it?

I stand firmly against any who do despot to the word of God. Corrupt gospels and a church in rebellion against the Lord. The church has forsaken her mission and gone after false gods.
Believing what the Bible says about spiritual gifts is not the same as going 'after false gods.' That's a messed up way of misinterpreting things.

Show from the scriptures that what goes on in the Pentecostal church aligns with 1 Cor 12-14 and the book of Acts.
I am part of a house church, not a Pentecostal denomination. But there are things about Pentecostals I can appreciate, just like I can appreciate certain things about Baptists, etc. As for whether what goes on in a Pentecostal church aligns with I Corinthians 12-14, it depends on which things and which churches. When it comes to tongues and prophecies, there are Pentecostal churches that allow for both in their meetings. In some of the churches, after a tongue given out in the congregation, someone else interprets. There are other churches where people pray in tongues 'en masse' with no interpretation and I do not agree with that practice.

But let us consider whether what goes on in your typical Protestant church and churches with historical ties to Protestantism, including Baptist and Pentecostal churches is Biblical. Where does the Bible teach to have one pastor preach one sermon every Sunday? I can't find that? Where does it say to have a hymn sandwich? That is a sermon sandwiched in between two sets of three hymns? I cannot find that.

I Corinthians 14 is the one long passage of scripture that tells us what to do in church. (Chapter 11 is kind of long tells us what _not_ to do with the Lord Supper). In I Corinthians 14, we see instructions on what to do in church. Regular members of the congregation speak and sing to edify each other. Verse 26 says, 'every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath an revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.' It doesn't say anything about a pastor speaking one sermon, but an elder teaching would be allowed if 'every one of you' is allowed to have a doctrine. There are specific instructions that allow for speaking in tongues and interpretation. The passage commands the church to 'let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.' In addition to that it says 'For ye may all prophesy one by one....' Paul writes that what he had written were 'commandments of the Lord' and implies it is universal church practice when he says, 'what came the word of God out from among you or unto you only has it come?'

So how many Baptist churches (or whatever kind of church you go to) actually do what the Bible teaches when it comes to church meetings?

The Biblical instructions are much more 'charismatic' in some ways than many Charismatic or Pentecostal church meetings. But many of these churches are closer in some ways because they do allow for some measure of obedience to the commandments of the Lord for church meetings that many other churches do not.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
that Agreement to excuse the gentiles was only reached after “many no small disputations”
Or much discussion. That doesn't mean the apostles disagreed. Peter and James (I'm assuming the Lord's brother) both spoke in favor of Gentiles not having to be circumcised.
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
I will refer you to the first section of @presidente's post #333. He said it well, and I see no reason to adapt it.

Exegesis makes sense out of what is in the text, and doesn't require that other ideas be added in. There is nothing nearby in the text to suggest that Paul is talking about the OT or NT either!
I agree with your point. Just from the context alone, it is difficult to determine exactly what the "that which is perfect comes" really is. The Greek word translated "perfect" (KJV, NASB - Could be translated: Perfect, complete or mature). Men over the years have taught it to mean: "The Lord", The Bible's full revelation completed", and "The maturity of the believer in the eternal state".

The meaning "The Lord", I believe should be rejected because of the Neuter Gender aspect of the text. The writer did not say: "that whom is perfect comes" but rather "that which is perfect comes" or "that which is complete comes". This would seem to be pointing us then to either the Bible or the Saints completion in eternity.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,369
13,730
113
I agree with your point. Just from the context alone, it is difficult to determine exactly what the "that which is perfect comes" really is. The Greek word translated "perfect" (KJV, NASB - Could be translated: Perfect, complete or mature). Men over the years have taught it to mean: "The Lord", The Bible's full revelation completed", and "The maturity of the believer in the eternal state".

The meaning "The Lord", I believe should be rejected because of the Neuter Gender aspect of the text. The writer did not say: "that whom is perfect comes" but rather "that which is perfect comes" or "that which is complete comes".
We agree on all this so far.

This would seem to be pointing us then to either the Bible or the Saints completion in eternity.
I reject the "completed Bible" view because it requires an untenable circular argument with regard to prophecy, which Scripture itself refutes. Someone who holds that the only prophecy that exists is that which became Scripture must ignore the fact that the prophecies uttered by Philip's daughters did not become Scripture, and that no word of prophecy uttered by any of the Corinthians became part of Scripture. Further, they must hoop-jump to explain how Agabus was recognized as a prophet before speaking a single word of prophecy. No cessationist (that I have challenged) has ever provided a coherent response to this challenge.

In contrast, someone who is not bound to such a restrictive view of genuine prophecy has no issue with prophecy spoken (or written) after the close of the canon; they understand that it was never intended to become part of Scripture.

That leaves us with the full maturity of the saint in the eternal kingdom, presumably after death. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of another explanation, but I have yet to hear of one.
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
One comment: Acts 15:37-39 explains why Paul did not want to take Mark along, but Paul's disagreement was with Barnabas, not Mark himself. It was not because they "couldn't get along".
Yes you are correct, the contentious argument was with Barnabas about Mark. I may have misspoke earlier. The point I was making though is that Paul would not entrust himself to Mark because of his unfaithful service to them in Pamphylia.

Act 15:37-38 And Barnabas was minded to take with them John also, who was called Mark. But Paul thought it not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
The meaning "The Lord", I believe should be rejected because of the Neuter Gender aspect of the text. The writer did not say: "that whom is perfect comes" but rather "that which is perfect comes" or "that which is complete comes". This would seem to be pointing us then to either the Bible or the Saints completion in eternity.
If I may add some further commentary to this idea: some people take 'that which is perfect' in the KJV to refer to a substantive 'that'-- a physical object that is perfect. But the Greek is τὸ τέλειον which more literally be rendered 'the perfect' or 'the complete.' We are waiting for some kind of perfected/completed state or situation.